[Noozhawk’s note: We republish news articles and commentaries from CalMatters on state and local policy issues that affect Santa Barbara County readers.]
A few months after his inauguration as governor in 1999, Gray Davis uttered a few words that rattled the Capitol.
While being interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, the Democrat expressed frustration about his differences with legislative leaders, and declared that their job was “to implement my vision.”
“They have a totally different view of the world than I do, totally different,” Davis said. “It was my vision that commanded a 20-point victory, the largest victory in 40 years.
“People expect government to reflect the vision that I suggested. Nobody else in the Legislature ran statewide. Their job is to implement my vision. That is their job.”
Davis had been sparring with then-state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, and then-Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, D-Los Angeles, over legislative priorities.
He prioritized education proposals while the Legislature wanted to focus, instead, on health insurance.
The impasse had become so heated that Burton and Villaraigosa essentially barred Davis’ aides from communicating with the legislative staff.
“I am adhering to my agenda, not the agenda that other people have for me,” Davis continued. “They didn’t run for governor. They want to have their agendas, let them run.”
At the time, Davis was the first Democratic governor in 16 years, which should have ushered in an era of cooperation with his fellow occupants of the Capitol.
Instead, their squabbling exemplified the perpetual rivalry between governors and legislators over who dominates the political agenda.
Legislative leaders had sparred with two Republican governors, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson, for 16 years prior to Davis, but the fact that he was a Democrat did not bridge the institutional gap.
In fact, his testy relationship with Burton and Villaraigosa was quite similar to the friction that Davis had experienced as chief of staff to Jerry Brown, whose governorship preceded Deukmejian and Wilson.
“The Legislature looks to stop drastic cuts to safety net programs that millions of Californians rely on to make ends meet.”
MONIQUE LIMÓN
As Gov. Gavin Newsom tries to wrap up his tenure and segue into an almost certain presidential campaign, his differences with today’s legislative leaders — again over priorities — are on display.
Newsom almost desperately wants to erase a string of multibillion-dollar budget deficits caused by overspending revenues.
He portrays his proposed $349.4 billion budget as balanced — not only for the forthcoming fiscal year but for the first cycle of his successor.
The plan narrows, but does not close, the chronic gap between income and outgo by holding down spending on education and health and social welfare services that are bread-and-butter priorities for Democratic legislators.
Ever since Newsom unveiled his revised budget in May, legislators have been bombarded with complaints by advocates of the services, such as Medi-Cal healthcare for low-income Californians.
The budget that legislative leaders released last week to meet Monday’s constitutional deadline would either restore many of Newsom’s reductions or delay them for the next governor.
Overall, the legislative version would hike spending by more than $6 billion compared to Newsom’s budget, thus increasing the deficit unless there is a spike in revenues, which the Legislature believes will happen.
“The Legislature looks to stop drastic cuts to safety net programs that millions of Californians rely on to make ends meet,” Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, said in a statement.
With the June 15 deadline satisfied, Newsom and legislative leaders now have two weeks to agree on a more finalized budget so that the 2026-2027 fiscal year can begin on July 1 with legal authority to spend specific appropriations.
With Newsom nearing lame-duck status, his ability to have his way on the budget is diminishing. His career aspirations may be less important to legislators than maintaining services for their constituents.
This commentary was originally published on CalMatters and is reposted with permission. Click here to sign up for CalMatters newsletters.
